If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

First of all, in the Presidential elctions, the Teas supported Sen Rick Santorum. A candidate that would turn this country into a Theocracy if he had the power! There is nothing Liberty about Santorum or smaller government. He's a big spender that would limit the peoples' Freedoms!

The Tea Party supported Santorum for his stance on abortion and same sex marriage..they didnt trust Mitt because of his earlier stances on the subject..Your assertion that Santorum is a big spending politician is just a smokescreen because you dont agree with his social stances..The Tea Party elected Rand Paul in Kentucky plain and simple,you just dont want to admit it because it doesnt fit your narrative...the reason the Libertarian Party will have difficulty in taking control of the Republican Party is because there is still a majority of that party that is Pro Life, anti MJ,anti same sex marriage

Executor of the Alanson C Brown III - Trust

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

1. The Tea Party supported Santorum for his stance on abortion and same sex marriage..2. they didnt trust Mitt because of his earlier stances on the subject..3. Your assertion that Santorum is a big spending politician is just a smokescreen because you dont agree with his social stances..4. The Tea Party elected Rand Paul in Kentucky plain and simple,you just dont want to admit it because it doesnt fit your narrative...5. the reason the Libertarian Party will have difficulty in taking control of the Republican Party is because there is still a majority of that party that is Pro Life, anti MJ,anti same sex marriage

My numbering above.

Speaking for myself,

1. Yes. 2. No one trusted Mitt on anything. 3. Respectfully disagree. 4. I agree--but did the Tea's know what they were getting? 5. I completely agree. But at what point will there be, A. So small a number of Republicans that even having 100percent of R's behind a candidate GUARANTEES a loss to anyone else? (It may be coming close!); or B., many R's that agree with the social principles but are no longer willing to be part of a party that is willing to sacrifice itself and the good of the Republic for them, rather than ceding those principles to individuals and the state?

Hope that makes sense, as I have a dog training appt. and won't be back for a while!

The Tea Party supported Santorum for his stance on abortion and same sex marriage..they didnt trust Mitt because of his earlier stances on the subject..Your assertion that Santorum is a big spending politician is just a smokescreen because you dont agree with his social stances..The Tea Party elected Rand Paul in Kentucky plain and simple,you just dont want to admit it because it doesnt fit your narrative...the reason the Libertarian Party will have difficulty in taking control of the Republican Party is because there is still a majority of that party that is Pro Life, anti MJ,anti same sex marriage

Yes, I understand that the Repubs aren't willing to join the 21st Century.

And, you just supported my point that the Teas are not about Liberty or a Balanced Budget. That is your 'smokescreen".

Yes, they backed Rand's Senate bid, I have never said otherwise. It just that they can't get him into the White House. He will need broader support than the Teas and with Santorum running again, who will they support?

Yes, I understand that the Repubs aren't willing to join the 21st Century.

And, you just supported my point that the Teas are not about Liberty or a Balanced Budget. That is your 'smokescreen".

Yes, they backed Rand's Senate bid, I have never said otherwise. It just that they can't get him into the White House. He will need broader support than the Teas and with Santorum running again, who will they support?

Yes, I understand that the Repubs aren't willing to join the 21st Century.

And, you just supported my point that the Teas are not about Liberty or a Balanced Budget. That is your 'smokescreen".

Yes, they backed Rand's Senate bid, I have never said otherwise. It just that they can't get him into the White House. He will need broader support than the Teas and with Santorum running again, who will they support?

and you think the Libertarian Party can...I am not a Tea Party fan but they have a bigger media following than the Libertarian Party...now come the mid terms if they can get some candidates elected in key Senate races then you got something cooking

Executor of the Alanson C Brown III - Trust

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

Franco conveniently "forgets" to mention Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio along with Rand Paul as Tea Party success stories. All of these men fought very tough Republican establishment opposition to gain their seats... If not for the Tea Party support, they would all still be in their civilian jobs. All three of them are mentioned as the "young guns" of the Republican Party. I'm sure Rand (or any of the others) will accept an addition 1% of the vote if the Libertarians decide to come along for the ride next time...

1. Yes. 2. No one trusted Mitt on anything. 3. Respectfully disagree. 4. I agree--but did the Tea's know what they were getting? 5. I completely agree. But at what point will there be, A. So small a number of Republicans that even having 100percent of R's behind a candidate GUARANTEES a loss to anyone else? (It may be coming close!); or B., many R's that agree with the social principles but are no longer willing to be part of a party that is willing to sacrifice itself and the good of the Republic for them, rather than ceding those principles to individuals and the state?

Hope that makes sense, as I have a dog training appt. and won't be back for a while!

Which brings up the Teas again. All they did the first two years was go after Planned Parenthood and Big Bird. Which is why the took in on the chin in 2012.

The LP agrees that abortion is an issue that should be left to the individual states.

To answer RK; I think a Libertarian like a Rand Paul has a better shot at occupying the White House than a Repub standard bearer.

and you think the Libertarian Party can...I am not a Tea Party fan but they have a bigger media following than the Libertarian Party...now come the mid terms if they can get some candidates elected in key Senate races then you got something cooking

Bon, that's like comparing Honey Boo Boo to a Kardashian. The T's like to make noise and put on a show for the cameras. But when crunch time comes, the fold like a cheap suit and take the easy way out. ( yes there are a very few exceptions ), but most really are just media whores like HBB and the K klan and live for a photo op or sound bite.

While not mainstream, at least the Liber's offer up more than re-runs.